Martin/Zimmerman-----Poll

[Johnfromokc]

I'm done with this idiot...

I'm just glad he's with the right wing wack jobs where he belongs.

Ditto.

 

[The Man]

Damn John ..you dont love me anymore either?

 

[The Man]

Not really much of a case since he was given bail on murder...It appears as if the charges may have been brought about to appease the masses while the hysteria settles from all the false news on the matter


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In a bail hearing in Florida, the burden of proof to deny bail, even in a second degree murder trial, is higher than necessary to seek a conviction in a trial.

"They would have to prove that the presumption of guilt is great, and that the proof is evident," said O'Mara.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://gma.yahoo.com/warning-graphi...immermans-050145810--abc-news-topstories.html

 

[Aeval]

"Understanding a second degree murder can be more confusing than the more serious first degree murder. The "criminal act" reference in the statute must be a single event or series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose of committing the murder or creating the dangerous condition that led to the death. Although second-degree murder can carry a potential incarceration of up to life in prison, the death penalty cannot be imposed on a person found guilty of second-degree murder.

Whether a Defendant's actions could have been reasonably foreseen as endangering a human life to the point of warranting a prosecution is a question for the jury and where a skilled defense lawyer can be most helpful. Examples may include the negligent supervision of a child or of the elderly by an adult, or other reckless behavior that led to the death of another person."

http://www.arnoldlawfirmllc.com/CM/Custom/SecondDegreeMurder.asp

I just copied this from a Florida lawyer's site. I think a pretty good case can be argued.

Zimmerman deemed Martin as a "suspicious character", he didn't want him to "get away" with whatever illegal activity Zimmerman thought Martin was going to take part in, Martin was not doing anything wrong by walking down the street....no matter how Zimmerman perceived the situation. So Zimmerman's "frame of mind" at the time was that the "man" he was watching was guilty of something, therefore was a perceived danger...so, in Zimmerman's mind, he's following a "bad guy". Zimmerman would be on edge, suspicious and defensive (when in fact there was no real threat at the time he left his vehicle).

Martin knows this man is watching him, he doesn't know why. He's in a somewhat unfamiliar area and would naturally be nervous of such a situation...therefore, also defensive and suspicious.

The encounter occurs - both "men" are aggitated, both are are suspicious of the other and on the defensive, the only difference is, Zimmerman has a gun.

We don't know if Zimmerman properly identified himself, we don't know what words were exchanged, we don't know who laid a hand on whom first. We know that Martin, was, in fact, on top of Zimmerman for a brief time but Zimmerman freed himself long enough to get his gun and shoot Martin.

So...after my long rant here...I think they can clearly argue that by Zimmerman leaving his vehicle to follow Martin started a series of events that lead to the death of Martin, he, by that single act, was creating the dangerous condition that led to the death.

 

[The Man]

"Understanding a second degree murder can be more confusing than the more serious first degree murder. The "criminal act" reference in the statute must be a single event or series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose of committing the murder or creating the dangerous condition that led to the death. Although second-degree murder can carry a potential incarceration of up to life in prison, the death penalty cannot be imposed on a person found guilty of second-degree murder.

Whether a Defendant's actions could have been reasonably foreseen as endangering a human life to the point of warranting a prosecution is a question for the jury and where a skilled defense lawyer can be most helpful. Examples may include the negligent supervision of a child or of the elderly by an adult, or other reckless behavior that led to the death of another person."

http://www.arnoldlawfirmllc.com/CM/Custom/SecondDegreeMurder.asp

I just copied this from a Florida lawyer's site. I think a pretty good case can be argued.

Zimmerman deemed Martin as a "suspicious character", he didn't want him to "get away" with whatever illegal activity Zimmerman thought Martin was going to take part in, Martin was not doing anything wrong by walking down the street....no matter how Zimmerman perceived the situation. So Zimmerman's "frame of mind" at the time was that the "man" he was watching was guilty of something, therefore was a perceived danger...so, in Zimmerman's mind, he's following a "bad guy". Zimmerman would be on edge, suspicious and defensive (when in fact there was no real threat at the time he left his vehicle).

Martin knows this man is watching him, he doesn't know why. He's in a somewhat unfamiliar area and would naturally be nervous of such a situation...therefore, also defensive and suspicious.

The encounter occurs - both "men" are aggitated, both are are suspicious of the other and on the defensive, the only difference is, Zimmerman has a gun.

We don't know if Zimmerman properly identified himself, we don't know what words were exchanged, we don't know who laid a hand on whom first. We know that Martin, was, in fact, on top of Zimmerman for a brief time but Zimmerman freed himself long enough to get his gun and shoot Martin.

So...after my long rant here...I think they can clearly argue that by Zimmerman leaving his vehicle to follow Martin started a series of events that lead to the death of Martin, he, by that single act, was creating the dangerous condition that led to the death.

Good post... I have tried to do a little research the last few minutes on it but have been led around in circles..Fla is pretty complicated on the matter.
The minimum sentence is 25 years for 2nd degree murder with a weapon.
Fla also has a 3rd degree murder...which they could plea down to as well.

My take on it is if he tried to detain Martin...then Zimmerman has no defense
If they considered "you dont need to do that"...as a police order rather than suggestion he has trouble..I dont think that will apply though.

The way the statue is written as 2nd degree murder it would be manslaughter in most states....I am very interested in how the state wrote the complaint to see which angle they are going in form,but I cant find anything.

They slipped it in there somehow though...so that comes back to self defense {which wont work if Zimmerman was committing a crime}.
But I dont think they will consider what dispatch said as police orders.

They could come back with a manslaughter charge after deliberation.{if fla law allows such}
I am fully against over charging someone then "settling for less"...it offers convictions with sympathetic value which aren't always the case.
Lets say you committed a crime that had a 10 thousand dollar fine but there wasnt much evidence..so the jurors give you a 2 thousand dollar fine instead...the fact would still remain there would be lack of evidence...and the fine should have been zero.

Zimmerman should win though if he has a decent lawyer.

"let me give you a gun. get on top of you and start smashing your head into the cement you will go for the gun."
That will be enough there to win some jurors alone.

 

[Aeval]

Good post... I have tried to do a little research the last few minutes on it but have been led around in circles..Fla is pretty complicated on the matter.
The minimum sentence is 25 years for 2nd degree murder with a weapon.
Fla also has a 3rd degree murder...which they could plea down to as well.

My take on it is if he tried to detain Martin...then Zimmerman has no defense
If they considered "you dont need to do that"...as a police order rather than suggestion he has trouble..I dont think that will apply though.

The way the statue is written as 2nd degree murder it would be manslaughter in most states....I am very interested in how the state wrote the complaint to see which angle they are going in form,but I cant find anything.

They slipped it in there somehow though...so that comes back to self defense {which wont work if Zimmerman was committing a crime}.
But I dont think they will consider what dispatch said as police orders.

They could come back with a manslaughter charge after deliberation.{if fla law allows such}
I am fully against over charging someone then "settling for less"...it offers convictions with sympathetic value which aren't always the case.
Lets say you committed a crime that had a 10 thousand dollar fine but there wasnt much evidence..so the jurors give you a 2 thousand dollar fine instead...the fact would still remain there would be lack of evidence...and the fine should have been zero.

Zimmerman should win though if he has a decent lawyer.

"let me give you a gun. get on top of you and start smashing your head into the cement you will go for the gun."
That will be enough there to win some jurors alone.

Thanks.

I really don't think the directive from the dispatcher is going be much of a sticking point, really. He was told not to go, but it could have been anyone saying "don't do that", him not listening is not beaking a law, it's just him being stupid.

I read somewhere that self-defense is the common defense for someone charged with 2nd degree murder in Florida, and really, the way the law is written, you can see why. You're right, it would be considered manslaughter in other places, here for sure.

I think over-charging is done quite often...they go with the big guns, so to speak, knowing it'll never stick, hoping that a lessor charge will. I can almost rationalize it, but I see your point.

No matter what, it's going to be a huge case for the defense and prosecution, with every word scrutinized to the hilt...did you read where Zimmerman's lawyer questioned the lead investigator (I think that's who it was) on the use of the word "confront" in his statement? I forget exactly how it was worded, but the investigator stated Zimmerman confronted Martin...but insisted that "confront" was too aggressive of a word and the investigator agreed that a less aggressive word could/should have been used. It's going to be that kind of a battle and I honestly can't even guess the outcome, but I do feel Zimmerman should be held accountable on some level.

 

[Francis]

I haven't honestly followed this case but here is an article I stumbled upon on a different subject pertaining to this type of situations..

Did any of you know 20 States have this law ?

The only thing that is worse than a bad law is an unnecessary law. Clearly, this was the case here.

The second part of the law — “stand your ground” — is the most problematic. Until 2005, in all 50 states, the law on the use of force for civilians was pretty simple. If you found yourself in a situation where you felt threatened but could safely retreat, you had the duty to do so. (A police officer does not have the duty to retreat; that is the distinction between a sworn police officer and the average citizen regarding use of force.)

Police officers are trained to de-escalate highly charged encounters with aggressive people, using deadly force as a last resort. Citizens, on the other hand, may act from emotion and perceived threats. But “stand your ground” gives citizens the right to use force in public if they feel threatened. As the law emphatically states, a citizen has “no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.”

During one debate, one of the law’s proponents suggested that if a citizen felt threatened in a public space, he should not have to retreat and should be able to meet force with force. I pointed out that citizens feel threatened all the time, whether it’s from the approach of an aggressive panhandler or squeegee pest or even just walking down a poorly lighted street at night. In tightly congested urban areas, public encounters can be threatening; a look, a physical bump, a leer, someone you think may be following you. This is part of urban life. You learn to navigate threatening settings without resorting to force. Retreating is always the best option.

As Florida police chiefs predicted in 2005, the law has been used to justify killings ranging from drug dealers’ turf battles to road rage incidents. Homicides categorized as justifiable have nearly tripled since the law went into effect.

Back in 2005, the National Rifle Association identified about two dozen states as fertile ground for the passage of laws just like this one. Florida was the first state to pass such a law. Today, at least 20 other states have followed suit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/24/opinion/floridas-disastrous-self-defense-law.html

 

[Francis]

Florida was the first state to pass such a law. Today, at least 20 other states have followed suit.

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law

 

[Kyle B]

Thanks.

I really don't think the directive from the dispatcher is going be much of a sticking point, really. He was told not to go, but it could have been anyone saying "don't do that", him not listening is not beaking a law, it's just him being stupid.

This is what I've been thinking. Stand Your Ground laws say that you don't have to retreat in the first place too, so Zimmerman could just say that he was reacting to a threat by following Martin.

On a side note, this case is reminding me of the whole Casey Anthony saga.

 

[The Man]

Thanks.

I really don't think the directive from the dispatcher is going be much of a sticking point, really. He was told not to go, but it could have been anyone saying "don't do that", him not listening is not beaking a law, it's just him being stupid.

I read somewhere that self-defense is the common defense for someone charged with 2nd degree murder in Florida, and really, the way the law is written, you can see why. You're right, it would be considered manslaughter in other places, here for sure.

I think over-charging is done quite often...they go with the big guns, so to speak, knowing it'll never stick, hoping that a lessor charge will. I can almost rationalize it, but I see your point.

No matter what, it's going to be a huge case for the defense and prosecution, with every word scrutinized to the hilt...did you read where Zimmerman's lawyer questioned the lead investigator (I think that's who it was) on the use of the word "confront" in his statement? I forget exactly how it was worded, but the investigator stated Zimmerman confronted Martin...but insisted that "confront" was too aggressive of a word and the investigator agreed that a less aggressive word could/should have been used. It's going to be that kind of a battle and I honestly can't even guess the outcome, but I do feel Zimmerman should be held accountable on some level.

I remember reading earlier about the use of a weapon...if he hadnt used a weapon it would have been no problem...merely battle turns deadly type thing.

Which the state could also say that is what martin was doing in his battle ....it seems that in Fla you can smash someones head into the cement in a fight and get away with it.....in other words had martin not been shot and he would have beat Zimmerman to death he would have walked as well...by merely saying "the fight got out of hand I had to do something"

Here that wouldnt fly...if he died it would be man slaughter {just a few years here}..or worse if he lived as it would be first degree assault ...of which they hammer you.

He is in for a ride for sure....with oddly written murder statues wide open for varied interpretation to ...to justified and excusable homicide being written just as wide open. It comes down to the people deciding...maybe not such a bad thing.

But that only works proper if there is no dishonesty involved......I dont trust people to be honest,
Not the DA ,the cops, Zimmerman, the girlfriend, or even fully trust the eye witnesses.
You could have 10 eye witnesses to the same crime...separate them out have 10 different cops question them and take reports.have 10 different DAs coach the witnesses ...you will have no 2 like testimonies.
Its gets worse if the witness is a benefit to the states case or if a hindrance.
Lets say there were 5 people who saw what happened but its not in the states favor.....well they dont use them 5 people..only what is to their own benefit.
The lawyer for the defense has no way of knowing about them....They can have their investigators do door to door knocks..but then they have the problem of accidentally contacting a state witness ...of whom they have to have a deposition rather than open conversation..or its their ass.
The states hold their evidence{discovery} as long as possible before giving a copy to the defense..then they find a reason to ask for a continuance usually 2 or 3 are given..so when the defense finally gets a copy of the paper work...it might be a year old.
The state has had a year to decide what to use and what to toss.....meanwhile..people move away..people forget etc..makes rough for the defense...lets say the defense finds witness a year later...seems odd to the jurors doesn't it?{this guy comes out of the middle of nowhere} ...especially if you cant remember other details like what pants did he have on....meanwhile the state has a few refreshers for their witnesses...sucks.

Guess what I am trying to say is there is no such thing as a fair trial...it goes in the states favor.
Also some states vary on who gets first and last shot with the witnesses and opening and closing arguments.

Ok...the state puts on a witness..with the state going first...the states shoots out just a few simple questions..then is done with the witness.
Now the defense gets to question them...there isnt mush to rebut as the state didnt say much.
Now the state gets the witness again....bleeds all the responses they want from the witness and its done...the defense doesnt get to further question
This varies by state..with some states ..the defense gets last examination of the witness...dont know how Fla works.
Also the same applies for opening and closing arguments...if the state gets last close ..its a clear advantage to the state.

It would be just like a debate here
Poster 1{state} writes a short post without much to substantiate his claim..just kind of an airy open presentation.
Poster 2{defense} responds with very little to rebut...as poster one didn't present much
Poster 1 posts again and now actually puts forth their claim
Poster 2 is screwed as he can say no more.....the moon can be made of cheese and he cant argue differently.

If I was a juror in this case and the state gets first and last...I would walk Zimmerman regardless ...as he was basically denied a chance for proper defense.

If the defense got last shot I might convict him with evidence but would still error on the side of caution due to the dishonesty of all involved anyway regarding the state.

 

[Aeval]

I remember reading earlier about the use of a weapon...if he hadnt used a weapon it would have been no problem...merely battle turns deadly type thing.

Which the state could also say that is what martin was doing in his battle ....it seems that in Fla you can smash someones head into the cement in a fight and get away with it.....in other words had martin not been shot and he would have beat Zimmerman to death he would have walked as well...by merely saying "the fight got out of hand I had to do something"

Here that wouldnt fly...if he died it would be man slaughter {just a few years here}..or worse if he lived as it would be first degree assault ...of which they hammer you.

He is in for a ride for sure....with oddly written murder statues wide open for varied interpretation to ...to justified and excusable homicide being written just as wide open. It comes down to the people deciding...maybe not such a bad thing.

But that only works proper if there is no dishonesty involved......I dont trust people to be honest,
Not the DA ,the cops, Zimmerman, the girlfriend, or even fully trust the eye witnesses.
You could have 10 eye witnesses to the same crime...separate them out have 10 different cops question them and take reports.have 10 different DAs coach the witnesses ...you will have no 2 like testimonies.
Its gets worse if the witness is a benefit to the states case or if a hindrance.
Lets say there were 5 people who saw what happened but its not in the states favor.....well they dont use them 5 people..only what is to their own benefit.
The lawyer for the defense has no way of knowing about them....They can have their investigators do door to door knocks..but then they have the problem of accidentally contacting a state witness ...of whom they have to have a disposition rather than open conversation..or its their ass.
The states hold their evidence{discovery} as long as possible before giving a copy to the defense..then they find a reason to ask for a continuance usually 2 or 3 are given..so when the defense finally gets a copy of the paper work...it might be a year old.
The state has had a year to decide what to use and what to toss.....meanwhile..people move away..people forget etc..makes rough for the defense...lets say the defense finds witness a year later...seems odd to the jurors doesn't it?{this guy comes out of the middle of nowhere} ...especially if you cant remember other details like what pants did he have on....meanwhile the state has a few refreshers for their witnesses...sucks.

Guess what I am trying to say is there is no such thing as a fair trial...it goes in the states favor.
Also some states vary on who gets first and last shot with the witnesses and opening and closing arguments.

Ok...the state puts on a witness..with the state going first...the states shoots out just a few simple questions..then is done with the witness.
Now the defense gets to question them...there isnt mush to rebut as the state didnt say much.
Now the state gets the witness again....bleeds all the responses they want from the witness and its done...the defense doesnt get to further question
This varies by state..with some states ..the defense gets last examination of the witness...dont know how Fla works.
Also the same applies for opening and closing arguments...if the state gets last close ..its a clear advantage to the state.

It would be just like a debate here
Poster 1{state} writes a short post without much to substantiate his claim..just kind of an airy open presentation.
Poster 2{defense} responds with very little to rebut...as poster one didn't present much
Poster 1 posts again and now actually puts forth their claim
Poster 2 is screwed as he can say no more.....the moon can be made of cheese and he cant argue differently.

If I was a juror in this case and the state gets first and last...I would walk Zimmerman regardless ...as he was basically denied a chance for proper defense.

If the defense got last shot I might convict him with evidence but would still error on the side of caution due to the dishonesty of all involved anyway regarding the state.

I agree with 99% of this....but you know you'd NEVER make the jury "I would walk Zimmerman regardless" lol.

 

[The Man]

I agree with 99% of this....but you know you'd NEVER make the jury "I would walk Zimmerman regardless" lol.

Only takes one

 

[The Man]

Looks like George is having trouble getting out people...this should spark some happiness back within a few

>>> we learned this afternoon that the man facing charges in the shooting death of florida teenager trayvon martin will likely not get out of jail this weekend after all. yesterday a judge granted george zimmerman bail but today his attorney says his client's family doesn't have the money. kerry sanders is in sanford, florida with the latest developments.

>> reporter: good evening. george zimmerman remains in the jail here. his lawyers said the logistics to get him out is more difficult than first anticipated. at the seminole county jail today, defense attorney mark o'mara said zimmerman 's family is having trouble to secure the $150,000.

>> that's a lot of money to come up. it's not a family of much means.

>> reporter: friday despite prosecutors' best efforts a judge ruled the 28-year-old who stands aaccused of second-degree murder for shooting and killing 17-year-old trayvon martin can go free if he posts bond. in court yesterday he apologized to martin's parents.

>> yesterday was an emotional roller coaster, just being in the same room with the killer of your child and then for him to give that insincere, very self-serving untruthful apology.

>> that apology says his attorney was george zimmerman 's idea.

>> i wanted to say i am sorry for the loss of your son. i did not know how old he was. i thought he was a little younger than i am, and i did not know if he was armed or not.

>> reporter: his attorney said that apology was specifically to answer questions first asked by the parent on nbc's "today" show.

>> did he know that was a minor and he was a teenager and did not have a weapon.

>> reporter: in sanford say the bond is fair while others believe he should remain in jail until the trial.

>> for the charge he got, he shouldn't get bail.

>> he doesn't seem to be a flight risk. he will stand up for the responsibility.

>> reporter: george zim maern's attorney says he believes that the bond should be in place by mid next week, and he hopes once george zimmerman gets out he goes into hiding until a trial, which is likely more than a year away. lester.

>> kerry sanders , thax.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/47130033/


But......................................
Hopefully a place to send donations will emerge soon
If he turns out innocent..there is no need for him to be locked up a year or 2 awaiting trial...right?

 

[Mercury]

He actually already has a website for donations.

http://therealgeorgezimmerman.com/

 

[Aeval]

I feel for his family, they didn't ask to be put through this.

But yeah, he set up a paypal account asking for donations a little while ago, not sure how that's working.

 

[The Man]

I say lets spread that link everywhere...do what we can for George
Perhaps Email everyone we know and ask them to forward it to all they know as well.

 

[Tangerine]

Slamming ones head into the ground is being aggressive regardless of who started it.

Do you know that this actually happened? All you know is that he had two bleeding wounds on his head.

Has anyone stepped forward that witnessed TM "slamming GZ's head into the ground?" Is it also possible that the two were engaged in a struggle and GZ fell to the ground and injured his head?

I have a problem with you repeating a phrase over and over and over again this is nothing more than unsubstantiated speculation. That is a page right out of Sean Hannity's playbook. Repeat a phrase often enough and people start to believe it, whether or not there is any truth to it.

Also, you keep referring to GZ as "The Watchman" as if it were somehow his job or some official capacity. Just because he appointed himself to the "Neighborhood Watch" doesn't give him a title. He was NOT acting in any official capcity. He didn't call into to "dispatch" like he was some security guard with direct link to police. He was nothing more than a private citizen calling 9-1-1.

 

[The Man]

Do you know that this actually happened? All you know is that he had two bleeding wounds on his head.

Has anyone stepped forward that witnessed TM "slamming GZ's head into the ground?" Is it also possible that the two were engaged in a struggle and GZ fell to the ground and injured his head?

I have a problem with you repeating a phrase over and over and over again this is nothing more than unsubstantiated speculation. That is a page right out of Sean Hannity's playbook. Repeat a phrase often enough and people start to believe it, whether or not there is any truth to it.

Also, you keep referring to GZ as "The Watchman" as if it were somehow his job or some official capacity. Just because he appointed himself to the "Neighborhood Watch" doesn't give him a title. He was NOT acting in any official capcity. He didn't call into to "dispatch" like he was some security guard with direct link to police. He was nothing more than a private citizen calling 9-1-1.

Do you know that this actually happened? All you know is that he had two bleeding wounds on his head.

As well as a large red area across the back of his head ..there are marks on his head that didn't split open

Has anyone stepped forward that witnessed TM "slamming GZ's head into the ground?"

Witnesses have placed martin on top of Zimmerman

Is it also possible that the two were engaged in a struggle and GZ fell to the ground and injured his head?

Very unlikely that he fell on his head multiple times...kind of a far reach.

I have a problem with you repeating a phrase over and over and over again this is nothing more than unsubstantiated speculation

As compared to falling on his head and causing multiple injuries...perhaps the broken nose as well

That is a page right out of Sean Hannity's playbook.

Perhaps that is what is needed at times.

Repeat a phrase often enough and people start to believe it, whether or not there is any truth to it.

Like George followed a 12 year old black child home from the candy store and shot him..and the police dept had a conspiracy to cover it up?

Also, you keep referring to GZ as "The Watchman" as if it were somehow his job or some official capacity.

Neighborhood watchman correct.....unpaid volunteer

He didn't call into to "dispatch" like he was some security guard with direct link to police

No one has stated he did....he has to use the phone like everyone else...Police band transmitters are for Police and not for private use.

He was nothing more than a private citizen calling 9-1-1

Correct....No one has ever claimed George was a cop or anything more than a watchman.

 

[The Man]

Turns out the prosecutor is a lying piece of shit as I have stated prior....as well as the investigators that signed the damn thing
Zimmerman should have already walked

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Mark O'Mara, questioned an investigator for the special prosecutor - sentence by sentence - about a probable cause affidavit the investigator signed outlining certain facts in the case.

Investigator Dale Gilbreath testified that he does not know whether Martin or Zimmerman threw the first punch and that there is no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's contention he was walking back to his vehicle when confronted by Martin. The affidavit says "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued."


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162...ade-smart-move/?tag=contentBody;storyMediaBox

I have a copy of the affidavit here as well.
I was curious as to how it would be written..as we can see its all speculation and contains at least one lie.
Sickening.....I am sure that many will see no issue with that though.
Both investigators have lost all credibility with with me...by signing a false affidavit.

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

Sorry, but it's very difficult for you to argue any kind of impartiality while simultaneously promoting one of the principals in your signature.

Even with the heavy slant put on your poll, you don't seem to be getting many backers. None of us were there, we have to rely on our instincts and our choice of media outlets, of which there are many, offering enormously varied opinions, or we can 'hold fire' [for want of a less ironic term] and wait to see what evidence is presented in the case.